zanzibar: <DrGridlock><How can an annotator give an "!" to a move when there is a better alternative?>

I think even engines will do this, if a set of a few moves all bump the eval by a big differential.

A good move is a good move. Just because there's a marginally better move doesn't detract from that (and in fact, the "best" move may jostle back-and-forth depending on how deep you let the engine go).

Terminal B: Thanks to all of you for your analysis, and your comments on the man vs. machine issue.

I was delighted when I first discovered the Cambridge Springs games. I lived near Cambridge Springs and often played golf there, long before I ever knew that any chess tournament of any caliber had ever been played there. To me, all of the games there are a treasure.

But, if you have not already seen it, this game is also analyzed very nicely by Fred Reinfeld and Reuben Fine in their book "Lasker's Greatest Chess Games 1889 - 1914", published in 1935. Even their annotations suggest that Lasker had a bit of luck on his side.

Analysis before the age of the machine of course, but very enjoyable. As Dr. Hsu, the developer of Deep Blue, once said: "[these machines] are just our tools."

I suppose I'm a little bitter about the pun, having submitted a couple which seemed clever to me but obviously didn't impress others. But <Pawnslaught> just isn't right. If ever there was a game where the pieces dominated, this is it.

AlicesKnight: Indeed a fascinating game. In the light of the man/machine discussion, I like Capablanca's comment (quoted by Golombek from Nikolai Grekov); "Let us depart from science... Chess can never reach its height by following in the path of science... Let us therefore ... turn the struggle of technique into a battle of ideas".

Ironmanth: Wow. Over morning coffee, at first this game did not make great sense. Probably much deeper than I can understand. I have a lot of questions on piece maneuvering. Thus, much to learn here. As far as the puns are concerned, sadly I have given up even looking at them anymore. Still love this sight and the many wonderful, intuitive, and helpful reader commentaries and analysis. Keep it up, chess players!

Howard: Nothing against this game's being GOTD, but Soltis stated in his book from ten years ago of the 100 best games of the 20th century, that this game was one of the most OVERRATED games of that century.

He argued that the game "(didn't) stand up well to close scrutiny." In other words, over the years several mistakes were gradually discovered in this game.

erimiro1: Sometimes I judge games simply by counting how many "what????" moves were done. "what????" moves can be great or bad (I don't mean tragic mistakes) but in all cases, they are unexpected and products of brilliant ideas. This game includes many "What????" moves, that are not easy to refute OTB, and this is the right way to see it.

AylerKupp: Yes, the game has nothing to do with a pawn storm, at least not a major one, so the name "Pawnslaught" seems inappropriate. Now, Napier thought that this was the best game he ever played even though he lost it. So perhaps a more suitable title might be along the lines of "Best Game I Ever Lost".

newzild: 19. f5! would have been good (+0.5), as it keeps the file closed over White's king. Lasker's 19. Bc5 is equal.

Black failed to exploit White's 19th. Napier should have opened the file and pinned the Ne7 with 19....ef (equal) instead of 19...gh (+1).

20. Bc4 (-1.6) was a blunder. Lasker should have played 20. bc, which is equal.

However, Napier blundered in turn with 20...ef (+0.8) instead of the equal 20...Ne4.

Napier also erred with 21...Ne4 instead of 21...Be4, after which he was probably lost (+1.4)

There are a couple of inaccuracies towards the end of the game. Basically, Black shouldn't have moved his rook off the back rank, and White could have played his 35. Be3 mating idea a move earlier. However, Black never had the chance to be better than -2.0 (in other words, lost) so the inaccuracies weren't terribly important.

In all, a pretty good performance by both players considering how complicated this game was.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.